Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Advances Research in Digital and Interdisciplinary Methods (JARDIM) follows a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality. Reviewers play a critical role in improving the quality of submissions and upholding the integrity of the research published in the journal.

 

Role of a Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate the scientific quality, clarity, and contribution of manuscripts within the journal’s scope. They provide constructive feedback to authors and assist the editorial team in making informed decisions regarding publication.

Key Responsibilities

  • Provide objective and fair assessments of the manuscript.

  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

  • Avoid conflicts of interest and notify the editorial team if any arise.

  • Complete the review within the stipulated deadline (typically 2–4 weeks).

 

Criteria for Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, consider the following key aspects:

1. Originality

  • Is the work original and does it make a significant contribution to the field of digital and interdisciplinary research methods?

  • Does it present novel findings, methodologies, or approaches?

2. Relevance to the Journal's Scope

  • Does the manuscript fit within JARDIM’s scope, covering digital tools, interdisciplinary approaches, methodological innovations, ethics, and applied research?

3. Research Design and Methodology

  • Is the research design appropriate for the study objectives?

  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail for replication?

  • Are data analyses sound and correctly interpreted?

4. Clarity and Structure

  • Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?

  • Does the title reflect the content, and is the abstract concise and informative?

  • Are figures, tables, and supplementary materials relevant and clear?

5. Interpretation of Results

  • Are results clearly presented and do they support the conclusions?

  • Does the discussion appropriately interpret findings and relate them to existing work?

6. Ethical Considerations

  • Does the manuscript adhere to ethical research standards, especially for studies involving human or animal subjects?

  • Are there concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, or improper authorship?

 

Structure of the Review

Provide detailed feedback to both authors and editors. Your comments should be constructive and aimed at improving the manuscript.

Reviewer Report Structure:

  1. Overall Recommendation:

    • Accept

    • Minor Revisions

    • Major Revisions

    • Reject

  2. Summary of the Manuscript:

    • Provide a brief overview, including primary findings and overall impression.

  3. Detailed Comments:

    • Major Comments: Address fundamental issues (e.g., methodology flaws, misinterpretation of results).

    • Minor Comments: Suggest smaller, technical, or editorial improvements (e.g., clarity, grammar, formatting).

  4. Confidential Comments to the Editor:

    • Include any private concerns for the editorial team (not shared with authors).

 

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Confidentiality:

  • Do not discuss or disclose manuscript content.

  • Do not use information from the manuscript for your own research until publicly available.

Conflict of Interest:

  • Inform the editorial team of any personal, financial, or professional conflicts.

Objectivity:

  • Ensure reviews are unbiased and based solely on the merits of the manuscript.

 

Review Submission

  • Submit your review via the journal’s online review system.

  • Follow automated instructions for uploading comments and recommendations.

 

Timeliness

  • Timely reviews are essential for efficient journal operation.

  • If unable to meet the deadline or requiring an extension, notify the editorial team as soon as possible.